Crosses and the 9th Circuit

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 24. 2009

Crosses and the 9th Circuit

Are these judges werewolves? Via Althouse. Supremes to decide:

The American Civil Liberties Union objected to the cross and filed a suit on behalf of Frank Bruno, a Catholic and former Park Service employee. The suit noted that the government had denied a request to have a Buddhist shrine erected near the cross.

Two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the ACLU and declared the cross an "impermissible governmental endorsement of religion."

Congress has intervened to try to save the cross by transferring a small parcel of land with the cross on it to a private group. However, the 9th circuit judges were unswayed. This "would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve," the appeals court said.

The 9th said what? Article Vll: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 10:47 | Comments (5) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

They should also cite the 14th. The 7th was originally intended to protect the established churches maintained by the various states. Seven of the original 13 had established churches when they ratified the Constitution. The Congregational Church was established in MA until the 1840s. The 14th amendment lay dormant like a ticking bomb until the Supremes used it to impose the establishment clause on the States. It's still ticking away waiting to reveal new surprises.

#1 Bob Sykes on 2009-02-24 11:27 (Reply)

wonder what they might plan to do about the moderate number of such monuments on the Federal cemetaries throughout the world

#2 HJ on 2009-02-24 15:46 (Reply)

#1, you are right. In fact, we still have a local government building here where, if you look closely enough, you can still make out the engraved words "Christian Education" on the side (not completely sandblasted away). For a long time it was understood that the states and local governments had a lot more leeway in promoting religion (then generally meaning a generic Protestant Christianity) than they do now. No one thought twice about prayer in schools, or reading Bible verses at the beginning of the day. The 1947 Supreme Court case extending the 14th am. to state and local government religious support took that away and has now led us down the slippery slope to where nothing but atheism is acceptable in the public square.

So this whole debate about America not being a "Christian country" is somewhat misguided, since it is based on a modern understanding of the First Amendment, not the traditional understanding. To the extent the "wall of separation of church and state" ever existed, it was only between the federal government and the church.

Of course, there is good and bad to that. I sometimes shudder at what the government would be promoting if it were allowed to promote religion in the 21st century.

#3 Jim on 2009-02-24 17:54 (Reply)

I would hate to have a Christian version of Sharia. I want religiously tolerant state. Not a religiously-hostile state which wants the State to be the religion.

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2009-02-24 18:16 (Reply)

That would be the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And note the words "...regarding an establishment of religion..." Refusing the establishment of a Bhuddist shrine gave the appearance of favoring Christianity because the cross had been allowed on government land.

Tradition applies in the case of cemeteries. Which, I must add, include the symbols of other faiths as well. You will find graves at military cemeteries marked with Jewish, Bhuddist, Wiccan, Hindu, any number of other symbols. Context comes into the picture here, for religion and religious expression is understood to be a private thing where we bury our dead. A context missing at a public venue intended for the enjoyment of the general public.

BTW, you're thinking of vampires. Werewolves have no problem with crosses in the stories I know.

#4 Alan Kellogg (Link) on 2009-02-25 19:29 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, February 24. 2009

Crosses and the 9th Circuit